MUMBAI: The six Tata Trusts that own 66% of Tata Sons filed caveats before the Maharashtra charity commissioner on Wednesday to block any adverse order against them without first hearing their side.This follows a Sept 24 complaint by vice-chairman Venu Srinivasan accusing Sir Dorabji Tata Trust of meddling in the commercial and strategic affairs of the group’s holding company and straying beyond their charitable mandate.Srinivasan’s complaint came in the wake of the Sept 17 resolution of Tata Sons board backing N Chandrasekaran for a third term as chairman.
Tata Trusts look to avoid repeat of SRTT-like bar
The caveats filed by Tata Trusts are a bid to avoid a repeat of the ex parte order the charity commissioner issued in May barring Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), the second-largest Tata Sons shareholder, from holding board meetings after Srinivasan complained that its board composition violated the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.This time, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), the largest Tata Sons shareholder, and the five other Trusts have filed caveats under Sections 41D and 47 of the Act, which govern the removal of trustees and suspension of the board, and Section 41E, which relates to restraining dealings in trust property.In his latest complaint, Srinivasan has asked the commissioner to open an inquiry into SDTT’s governance. He also asked the commissioner to bar SDTT from holding board meetings, freeze changes to its board and reserve the option of suspending or removing its trustees if violations were found.Tata Group watchers said the orders Srinivasan sought, if granted, could incapacitate SDTT too. With SRTT already under the May ban, SDTT and SRTT would both be constrained from functioning normally and exercising their shareholder rights in Tata Sons on crucial matters.Srinivasan also sought directions from the commissioner requiring Noel Tata to recuse himself from decisions on appointing nominees to Tata Sons’ AGMs, be barred from exercising the Trusts’ voting rights at those meetings, and be prevented, as a nominee director, from taking part in Tata Sons board decisions.As evidence of interference, Srinivasan pointed to Noel’s involvement in talks on liquidity for Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group and a proposal to monetise part of its Tata Sons stake. Noel sought authorisation for Tata Sons operating team and Trusts to continue negotiating with SP Group and bankers. Srinivasan has said that amounts to Trusts taking a direct role in substantial commercial transactions concerning Tata Sons.He also cited Trusts’ public opposition to a Tata Sons listing, saying they had resolved that Tata Sons should stay unlisted and told the company to implement that position. He also alleged SDTT tried to influence his independent judgment as Trusts’ nominee director on Tata Sons board. Earlier this month, a resolution was circulated to stop him participating in or voting on the proposed listing. He characterised the move as an attempt to suppress dissenting views and concentrate decision-making power within a smaller group of trustees.He also questioned the basis of Noel’s chairmanship of Trusts and the circumstances surrounding the appointment of his son, Neville Tata, to SDTT’s board in Nov 2025, including what he described as “my exclusion from the decision-making process.”Srinivasan argued that Trusts’ involvement in Tata Sons’ commercial affairs could jeopardise their income-tax exemptions and expose them to tax on accreted income. Given the value of SDTT’s Tata Sons stake, he said the consequences for its charitable corpus could be immense.The May order had already put a question mark over Tata Sons annual general meeting (AGM). The AoA require SDTT and SRTT to jointly appoint a nominee to represent their shareholding before the AGM can be held. SRTT cannot act because of the commissioner’s order. The AGM must also approve N Chandrasekaran’s continuation as a Tata Sons director, and the Trusts, excluding SRTT, hold the votes to influence that outcome.
